Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36845185›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2023

Biological treatment of biowaste as an innovative source of CO-The role of composting process.

Karolina Sobieraj, Sylwia Stegenta-Dąbrowska, Gang Luo, Jacek A Koziel, Andrzej Białowiec

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Karolina SobierajDepartment of Applied Bioeconomy, Wrocław University of Environmental and Life Sciences, Wrocław, Poland.
Sylwia Stegenta-DąbrowskaDepartment of Applied Bioeconomy, Wrocław University of Environmental and Life Sciences, Wrocław, Poland.
Gang LuoShanghai Key Laboratory of Atmospheric Particle Pollution and Prevention (LAP3), Department of Environmental Science and Engineering, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Jacek A KozielUSDA-ARS Conservation and Production Research Laboratory, Bushland, TX, United States.
Andrzej BiałowiecDepartment of Applied Bioeconomy, Wrocław University of Environmental and Life Sciences, Wrocław, Poland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Carbon monoxide (CO) is an essential "building block" for producing everyday chemicals on industrial scale. Carbon monoxide can also be generated though a lesser-known and sometimes forgotten biorenewable pathways that could be explored to advance biobased production from large and more sustainable sources such as bio-waste treatment. Organic matter decomposition can generate carbon monoxide both under aerobic and anaerobic conditions. While anaerobic carbon monoxide generation is relatively well understood, the aerobic is not. Yet many industrial-scale bioprocesses involve both conditions. This review summarizes the necessary basic biochemistry knowledge needed for realization of initial steps towards biobased carbon monoxide production. We analyzed for the first time, the complex information about carbon monoxide production during aerobic, anaerobic bio-waste treatment and storage, carbon monoxide-metabolizing microorganisms, pathways, and enzymes with bibliometric analysis of trends. The future directions recognizing limitations of combined composting and carbon monoxide production have been discussed in greater detail.

Indexed as

aerobicanaerobicbibliometric analysiscarbon monoxideCODHcomposting

Identifiers

PMID36845185
PMCPMC9947533

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.